Inman v Trust Alliance Group Ltd [2025] EWHC 3217 (KB) (08 December 2025)

Inman v Trust Alliance Group Ltd [2025] EWHC 3217 (KB) (08 December 2025)

The appeal had no real prospect of success because the lower court correctly applied the law on limitation, found no sufficient medical or procedural justification for the delay, properly exercised its discretion, and there was no compelling reason to admit fresh evidence or to find a continuing act by the Respondent's solicitors. Procedural fairness and reasonable adjustments were adequately addressed. The application for anonymity was only granted in a limited form regarding non-party access to documents.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 3217 (KB)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Debra Cheryl Inman; Respondent/defendant: Trust Alliance Group Ltd (formerly The Ombudsman Service Ltd)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (renewed Application for Permission to Appeal) / Permission to Appeal (renewed Oral Application)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Equality Act 2010, Disability Discrimination, Procedural Fairness, Case Management, Extension of Time, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Anonymity Orders
Civil Procedure Equality and Discrimination Law Limitation Periods Equality Act 2010 Disability Discrimination Procedural Fairness Case Management Extension of Time +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Debra Cheryl Inman

Appellant/claimant

Trust Alliance Group Ltd (formerly The Ombudsman Service Ltd)

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (renewed Application for Permission to Appeal) / Permission to Appeal (renewed Oral Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lower court erred in refusing to extend the limitation period for a claim under the Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the lower court erred in dismissing applications against the Respondent's solicitors
  3. 3 Whether procedural unfairness or inadequate reasonable adjustments occurred

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal had no real prospect of success because the lower court correctly applied the law on limitation, found no sufficient medical or procedural justification for the delay, properly exercised its discretion, and there was no compelling reason to admit fresh evidence or to find a continuing act by the Respondent's solicitors. Procedural fairness and reasonable adjustments were adequately addressed. The application for anonymity was only granted in a limited form regarding non-party access to documents.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Renewed application for permission to appeal is refused.
  • Limited order: any non-party application for access to documents must be on 7 days' notice to allow for representations on redaction of confidential health information.